Published on: 8th April 2026
Authored by: Anju Chaudhary
Thakur Ramnarayan College of Law
Title – M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.
Date of Decision – November 9 2019
Case Number – Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010
Court – Supreme Court of India
Judges- Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi (Chief Justice) ,Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Parties:
Petitioners/Appellants: M. Siddiq, who’s deceased and is represented by his representatives Maulana Asshad Rashidi and the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs. Petitioners/Appellants represent the interest. Petitioners/Appellants claim title and possession of the Babri Masjid site.
Respondents: Mahant Suresh Das and others the Nirmohi Akhara and the deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman (infant Lord Ram, represented by a friend). The State of Uttar Pradesh and other Hindu organisations, like the All India Hindu Mahasabha join, as parties.
Lawyers:
Petitioners: (Sunni Waqf Board): Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Shri Raju Ramachandran, and Shri Dushyant Dave.
Respondents: (Hindu Parties): A battery of senior counsel including Shri K. Parasaran, Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Harish Salve, Shri Ranjit Kumar, and Shri Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General of India).
Facts of the Case:
The dispute concerned a 2.77-acre plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. Hindus believe the site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Babri Masjid, a mosque stood on the site until 1992.
The modern legal dispute originated on the night of December 22-23, 1949. The modern legal dispute began when Hindu idols were placed inside the dome of the mosque. The Hindu idols, in the dome of the mosque sparked a law-and-order crisis. The law-and-order crisis spread through the town. The City Magistrate of Faizabad stepped in on December 29 1949. The City Magistrate of Faizabad opened proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The City Magistrate of Faizabad put the site under the receivership of the state government to keep peace.
The core of the litigation was three title suits that were filed over years. Each title suit claimed rights, to the land. The conflict got worse on December 6 1992. A large gathering of kar sevaks demolished the Babri Masjid on December 6 1992. After that the Central Government passed the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The Acquisition of Certain Area, at Ayodhya Act 1993[i] took the disputed land. Took the land. The Allahabad High Court gave a 2:1 majority verdict in 2010. The Allahabad High Court split the disputed land into three pieces. Gave each piece to a different group. The three pieces went to the Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board and the deity Ram Lalla. The parties were not happy, with the trifurcation. The parties appealed to the Supreme Court.
Background of the Dispute:
The key historical and legal chronology is as follows:
1528: Hindu parties contend that the Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528 by Mir Baqi, a commander of the Mughal Emperor Babur, after demolishing a pre-existing temple. Muslim parties maintain the mosque was built on vacant land.
1856-1859: After community fighting the British colonial administration built a fence. I saw that the fence cut the site in two. The fence made a courtyard for use. The fence made a courtyard, for Hindu use.
1949: Idols placed inside the mosque; property attached by the state.
1959: Suit 3 filed by the Nirmohi Akhara, seeking the right to manage and worship at the site.
1961: Suit 4 filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board, seeking a declaration of title and possession of the mosque.
1989: The person filed Suit 5 on behalf of the deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman (Ram Lalla). Suit 5 asked for a declaration of title.
1992: Demolition of the Babri Masjid.
1993: The government enacted the Ayodhya Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court in Dr M Ismail Faruqui, v. Union of India (1994)[ii] upheld the acquisition. Struck down the clause that stopped pending suits
2002-2003: The Allahabad High Court directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct a survey. The ASI report indicated evidence of a pre-existing structure beneath the mosque ruins.
2010: The Allahabad High Court delivered its judgment dividing the land in 2010. The Supreme Court, upon taking up the appeals, first attempted court-monitored mediation (Feb-Aug 2019), which failed. Subsequently, a five-judge Constitution Bench commenced hearings and delivered its verdict on November 9, 2019
2017‑2019: The Supreme Court took up the appeals. I saw the Supreme Court first try court‑monitored mediation (Feb‑Aug 2019). The mediation did not work. The Supreme Court then formed a five‑judge Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench began day‑to‑day hearings.
On November 9 2019 I read that the Supreme Court delivered a verdict. The Supreme Court made a ruling.
Issues:
The Supreme Court set out legal questions. The Supreme Court answered those questions.
1.Are the suits filed by the Nirmohi Akhara (Suit 3) and the Sunni Waqf Board (Suit 4) barred by limitation, under the Limitation Act 1908?
2.Does the deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman constitute a person that can hold title? Does the Asthan Sri Ram Janam Bhumi, the birthplace site constitute a person that can hold title?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court gave a judgment. The unanimous judgment set aside the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict.
Key Holdings and Reasoning:
On Limitation:
I note that the Court said Suit 3, by the Nirmohi Akhara was barred because of the limitation. The Court dismissed Suit 3. I note that the Court said Suit 4 by the Sunni Waqf Board was, within the limitation period[iii].
On Juristic Personality:
The Court held that the idol of the deity Shri Ram Virajman is a person. The idol can hold title to property. I also saw that the Court rejected the claim that the abstract site of Ram Janmabhoomi of the idol ‘s a juristic entity.
On Title and Possession:
The Court gave the title to the disputed property to the deity Shri Ram Virajman. The Court based the decision, on a balance of evidence.
Archaeological Evidence:
The Court accepted the ASI report finding of a pre‑existing structure, beneath the mosque, as credible. The Court noted the ASI report finding is not an opinion. The Court called the ASI report finding evidence.
Evidence of Worship:
The Court looked at accounts, travelogues and revenue records. Those records showed the Hindus kept the courtyard and worshiped the site as the birthplace of Lord Ram even while the mosque stood. The Sunni Waqf Board failed to prove possession of the courtyard so the Sunni Waqf Board could not establish adverse possession, against the Hindu claimants.
Assessment of Actions:
The Court condemned the placement of idols in 1949. The Court condemned the demolition of the mosque in 1992. The Court called both acts violations of the law. The Court also said the placement of idols and the demolition of the mosque do not by themselves determine the question of title.
Disposition and Relief:
The Court used the Courts powers under Article 142 of the Constitution [iv]to give justice. The Court then issued the following directives:
The Central Government got an order to form a trust within three months. The trust will oversee the construction of the Hindu temple on the disputed site.
At the time the order told the government to give another 5‑acre plot of land in a location, in Ayodhya, to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The government must give the plot of land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for building a mosque.
I think the Nirmohi Akhara should get representation. The Nirmohi Akhara will have representation, in the proposed trust.
Commentary
As a law student I see the Ayodhya judgment as a look, at how the judiciary tries to settle a dispute that mixes law, history, archaeology and strong religious belief. The Ayodhya judgment brings together facts from those fields. The Court’s unanimous verdict tries to give finality. The Court’s verdict also invites analysis, from constitutional and legal perspectives.
Positive Aspects and Pragmatic Resolution:
I think the judgment is a step, by the court. The judgment ends a conflict that lasted for years. The conflict touched the people of India. The judgment uses Article 142 to give a 5‑acre plot. The judgment shows the court taking an approach. The court sees that the Muslim community was hurt by the demolition. The court wants to fix the hurt. The court offers a fix to make things right. The court hopes the judgment will bring justice and help the community live in peace. I think the Court is moving past a rule. The Court is trying to find a solution that works for society.
Critical Legal Scrutiny:
I notice that the reasoning has faced the critique. The biggest challenge is the way the evidence and the burden of proof are treated. Critics say that the Court used the ASI evidence and historical accounts of Hindu worship. The Court used a standard of proof, for the claim. The Court judged the claim by a requirement to prove exclusive possession for centuries. That requirement creates an burden of proof for any side, in the historical dispute. In contrast the Hindu claim used a rule that relied on faith, belief and ongoing worship. The Hindu claim was not exclusive. The Hindu claim seemed to have proof. Faith-based claims get evidence, than legal title. Formal legal title does not get the amount of proof.
The difference, between the idol, which’s a person and the birthplace which is not a juristic person looks like a formality. The Court gave the title to the idol of Ram Lalla. The Court gave approval for the claim over the birthplace. The claim was, about the idol of Ram Lalla that was meant to stand for the birthplace.
Broader Implications:
The verdict shows the limits of the process, in solving disputes that come from history and faith. The verdict raises questions. Can modern property law principles settle centuries‑old grievances? Does the quest for ” justice” under Article 142 risk turning the Court into an social arbiter, beyond its traditional adjudicative role?
In comparison the judgment stands against the structure doctrine that the Supreme Court set, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)[v]. In that case the Court boldly set the limits. In the Ayodhya case the Court expanded the Court’s role. The Court used power not to interpret the law but to shape a specific social and religious outcome. Observers will judge the judgment’s legacy by the judgment’s soundness. Observers will also judge the judgment’s legacy by the judgment’s success or failure in creating lasting peace, between communities.
References:
[i] The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (Act No. 33 of 1993)
[ii] Dr M Ismail Faruqui & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 360.
[iii] The Limitation Act, 1908.
[iv] The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 142.
[v] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
